THE JOURNAIv OF PHARMACOLOGY. 195 



♦ ♦ 



eourt Definition of "Drug Store.' 



An important decision has lately been rendered by the Illinois Court of 

 Appeals as to the legal definition of drug store under the State pharmacy 

 law, A Chinaman, Yee Way by name, who kept a laundry on South 

 Clark street, in Chicago, upon the evidence of Mr. Chaffee of the board of 

 pharmacy, was convicted by a police magistrate of selling opium, contrary 

 to the provisions of the pharmacy law. The Cook County Criminal 

 Court, to which Yee Way appealed, confirmed the verdict of the lower 

 court. Again the case was appealed, the trial judge being Judge Windes, 

 and again the original verdict was sustained. 



The contention of the plaintiff in error against the State was that as he 

 did not keep a drug store but only a laundry, where he sold opium for 

 smoking purposes, he was not amenable to the pharmacy law, and further 

 that opium for smoking had not been proven to be a drug, medicine or 

 poison, and, hence, the State's attorney had not made a case. 



In his decision Judge Windes, after quoting the pertinent passages of 

 the law and the evidence submitted says : 



*' The claim that because plaintiff in error did not keep a drug store, but 

 only run a laundry where he sold the opium in question for smoking does 

 not make him amenable to the statute, is, in our opinion, untenable. The 

 statute, in defining the term drug store or pharmacy, says that it shall be 

 construed to mean a store, shop or other place of business where drugs, 

 medicines or poisons are compounded, dispensed, or sold at retail. A 

 laundry is a place of business. Opium is commonly and generally known 

 as a drug, medicine, and a poison. Webster says it is a stimulant nar- 

 cotic poison, and is smoked as an intoxicant with baneful effects. 



" The evidence shows that plaintiff in error kept a place of business, a 

 laundry, and that he sold the opium from that place of business at retail, 

 and we are therefore of the opinion that so far as this contention is con- 

 cerned, plaintiff in error comes within the terms of the statute, 



"What we have said as to what, opium is commonly and generally 

 known to be, and the evidence recited, is, we think, a sufficient answer to 

 the claim that the prosecution failed to make a case, because it did not 

 prove that opium used for smoking was a drug, a medicine or a poison." 



This decision is a signal victory for the friends of the pharmacy law 

 and nearly as important to druggists in Illinois as the Castoria decision. 

 However, great circumspection will have to be exercised by the board so 

 as not to abuse the power thus conferred.— Western Dniggist. 



Notice. 



Are you a registered pharmacist? If not, and you hold a N. Y. C. P. 

 diploma, do so at once. 



